Madras High Court Directs Authorities to Consider Representation on Encroachment of Government Lands and Common Pathway. Non-consideration of representation by statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty, warranting a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, A. Devadass, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 7 (various revenue and panchayat authorities) to remove encroachments allegedly made by respondents 8 to 11 on survey numbers 14/1 at Alathoor Panchayat and 125 at Chettikulam Panchayat, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, which are classified as government lands and common pathway. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 08.01.2025 to the official respondents, but it was not considered, prompting the petition. The court observed that when a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on its merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty. Accordingly, the court directed respondents 1 to 7 to consider the petitioner's representation within three months, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, private respondents, and other interested persons. The court clarified that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the matter. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty of Statutory Authority - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty to consider it on its own merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226. (Paras 5-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents 1 to 7 are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of encroachments on government lands and common pathway.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court directed respondents 1 to 7 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.01.2025 on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, respondents 8 to 11, and all other interested persons, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Duty of statutory authority to consider representation
  • Non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty
  • Writ of Mandamus maintainable for non-consideration
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 75

W.P.(MD)No.2174 of 2025

2025-01-27

M.S.Ramesh, A.D.Maria Clete

Mr.G.Kaleeswaran (for petitioner), Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran (for respondents 1-4), Mr.S.Shaji Bino (for respondent 5)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct removal of encroachments on government lands and common pathway.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner seeks direction to respondents 1 to 7 to remove encroachments made by respondents 8 to 11 on survey numbers 14/1 at Alathoor Panchayat and 125 at Chettikulam Panchayat, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, by considering his representation dated 08.01.2025.

Filing Reason

Non-consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 08.01.2025 by the official respondents.

Issues

Whether the respondents 1 to 7 are obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding removal of encroachments on government lands and common pathway.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner submitted that he gave a representation on 08.01.2025 for removal of alleged encroachments, but it was not considered. Respondents 1 to 4 represented by Additional Government Pleader, respondent 5 by Special Government Pleader; no specific arguments recorded.

Ratio Decidendi

Whenever a representation is made to a statutory authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders; non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment Excerpts

Whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. Non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 27.01.2025, seeking a Writ of Mandamus. The court, by consent of both sides, took up the petition for final disposal at the admission stage and disposed it on the same day.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Directs Authorities to Consider Representation on Encroachment of Government Lands and Common Pathway. Non-consideration of representation by statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty, warranting a direction under Article 2...
Related Judgement
High Court Jurisdictional Dispute under Section 24, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 Residential vs. Commercial Use – A Legal Tug-of-War